Food Stamps Restriction

newmeadow wrote: »

Why are they now unable to break out? I'm assuming you're middle agey, but correct me if I'm wrong. Your school friends of yesteryear would today be in the same general age bracket.

The simplest reason that it becomes challenging is the cost to move to somewhere that there are better opportunities.

Looking back, there was a collapse in the local economy, a major manufacturing facility closed down, and a mineral extraction facility closed down. Between them that put some 70% of the working age population out of work. That's a lot of people hitting the system all at once. No jobs to go to, and insufficient opportunity. Even retraining people was going to have a limited impact as they had nothing to move on to.

Thinking about my immediate peer group, many got married pretty much straight out of school. At the time that led to children fairly quickly, and an expectation that women would go into low skill jobs, potentially part time, to allow child care. The proportion of women going on to higher education was low. Those that had bought homes found the value evaporated, with many in negative equity as a result of the collapse of the job market.

Personally my first job, in retail, involved an hour on the train. I had to give that up when my manager rescheduled shifts and it ended up costing me money to have a job. In truth that was only about a month before I joined the military, so the effect wasn't all that significant for me, but it wasn't an atypical situation.

Those that found opportunities generally ended up moving away to exploit them, and I don't imagine any would move back now. Despite a number of regeneration initiatives the area remains destitute. The one remaining industry is small, and has quite a niche market, so few growth opportunities. Other replacements have had low demand for people.

So you've got a situation where people are in poverty. Cost of living whilst in that situation is higher than it is for those who have sufficient cash. There is limited opportunity to build a reserve of capital that might allow a move away.

I'd also note that many also have an emerging need for parental care; the idealised view expressed upthread in practice. If we consider that it takes a raise a child, it needs the same to care for the aged. Dealing with the challenge from several hundred miles away is one thing, but proposing to move even 100 is a very difficult case to make.

So I can look there now and see people who have essentially given up. Equally I see some who would do something else, but are tied into existing responsibilities. And I see those who really don't have the capital, or cash flow.

3) they decided not to take advantage of the U.K.'s generous socialized vocational training programs to ready them for the skilled trade of their choosing; 4) they decided not to take advantage of the U.K.'s subsidized accredited, post secondary university learning if they had the scholastic aptitude

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but I don't recognise those suggestions.

I would say that from my peer group, everyone who moved away has done reasonably well; other than one who was murdered by terrorists in the province.

Whilst the area that I grew up isn't unusual, in terms of the effect of that loss of heavy industry, it has suffered more than others in terms of replacement. Several of the former industrial areas have benefited from investment in largely service industries. The issue with that is that the replacement jobs tend to be much lower skill levels, and much lower wages. Where I'm from didn't have the population density to really support a replacement. Contact centres demand an oddly high population. What I would say is that those areas have similar challenges for people trying to break out. Their income isn't enough to build the capital to move away.

What I would say is that all of them recognise the value in education, and in some ways I suspect that their focus is on enabling their children to break out of that cycle. While a first degree is a very limited differentiator in the market, I am seeing university education seen as a must do. Of course that comes with a significant debt liability.

VintageFeline wrote: »

Ah the mythical everyone is perfectly able to get a better job/become healthy fairy. We have those in the UK too.

There was a proposal to issue sort of gift cards for some welfare benefits here. It hasn't, as yet, gained traction. Because even for those with most disdain for poor people it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And if your life is a grinding drudge of trying to make it to the end of the week whilst the rest of society judges you for not bettering yourself, who am I to judge you for having a soda, or a beer or whatever.

I was attacked once because I bought a £3 DVD in the run up to Christmas when I was flat *kitten* broke and had to ask for help (was at uni and it was through their hardship fund). And yet I have paid plenty of taxes. But I'm a terrible person because I bought something to make me feel better about being poor and alone (estranged from family) at Christmas.

Could happen to any of us. Perhaps if wages were actual living wages then we wouldn't need to have so many of these discussions.

So true! Anything can happen at any time to anybody and turn your world upside down. It happened to us and we nearly lost everything. I am on disability and my husband had a medical emergency, had ER surgery, hospital for a week, and not able to work for 7-8 months. He lost his job and he had no insurance. If it hadn't been for family, friends, and being able to get food stamps for a while, we would have been on the streets. Things snowball.

It's embarrassing enough to have to apply for food stamps when you have worked since you were a teen and are now in your 50's. There's no need to add insult to injury. You never know what people have gone through to get to that situation.

So no I don't think that's a good law. Tobacco and alcohol are a different thing. But food and beverages, yes let them buy them.

jhildebrandt73 wrote: »

The government is trying to do what it can to control the child obesity epidemic. It is obvious that parents are failing to make smart decisions so micro management is the only way. Freedom is a fine thing, but without responsibility it is a detriment.

And at what point do you want the government to NOT micro manage? It may not bother you if they micro manage sofa, but what about other parts of your private life? It is a very slippery slope once they start to interfere in any aspect of your personal life.

tbright1965 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

tbright1965 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

JMcGee2018 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

tbright1965 wrote: »

That's the price of handling it in DC instead of the local community. If the money had to come from your neighbors/community, the people actually providing the money would have a good idea of someone was really down on their luck or making assistance their vocation.

Equally it makes it much easier to deny support to those whose eyes are too close together, or have a lifestyle that people disapprove of. There is a lot of value in having this kind of thing managed by a dispassionate system.

Also, there are often poor communities where a large part of the population there needs support.

I wouldn't disagree. In my later post I've noted that in the UK many of the areas where we have systemic poverty are subject to community poverty; poor educational attainment, higher levels of abortion, high levels of public health issues, frequently a skewed demographic where potential earners move away from the area.

I know from my own experience, having grown up in one of those areas there is nothing that would encourage me to go back. School friends who never managed to break out are now in a situation where they're never going to.

There is a horrifying naivete from the foaming at the mouth right wing. Those who want personal freedom, but only if people conform to their societal expectations and demands.

But isn't that what personal freedom is?

Many want personal freedom, for themselves, but expect others to give up the freedom to choose how they will help, how much, and so on.

You don't get personal freedom by taking it away from one and giving it to another.

Christians are not very Christian and Liberals are not really liberals. One is right authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good. The other is left authoritarian, you must do things my way for the greater good.

Liberal means that people have the freedom to decide. It doesn't mean we are going to create a large government apparatus, make people "give" to it and pat ourselves on the back saying we are liberal.

The so-called liberals are no less hypocritical than the so-called followers of Christ.

Is there any justification for social safety net programs that passes your hypocritical test? Or is only private funding for things like food assistance, health care, housing for the needing, etc acceptable to you?

People are free to voluntarily fund such programs per their personal values.

(So called) liberals should not be able to impose their values on others any more than (so called) Christians should be able to impose their values on others.

I have nothing against programs, as long as they are funded with money freely given by others. That is the only liberal way to do it. Passing laws to force others to "give" isn't liberal, it's authoritarian.

Just because I'm against GOVERNMENT doing it doesn't mean I'm against it.

If you want government to do it, then start writing them checks. But don't just blanket tax everyone and suggest that your authoritarian bent is for the greater good.

You should be no more worried about what some conservative may or may not support or how they may or may not donate than should any conservative be concerned about who may be sleeping with whom and their marital status.

In a free society, NEITHER should be allowed to impose their vision of the greater good on others.

So no, there is no acceptable level of imposing values on a free citizenry beyond laws that prevent one from causing harm to another.

I.E. being a billionaire because you invented a better mousetrap and sold it doesn't cause harm. Stealing a billion dollars causes harm.

Owning a firearm doesn't cause harm. Shooting someone with that firearm causes harm.

Our rights end at the nose of another. I can't punch you because I think differently. You cannot demand I be taxed because you think people should provide help to another. Both cause harm or limit the freedom of choice.

People should always be free to donate. They should never be compelled to fund another's vision of the greater good. You can ask, individually. But 300 million people voting to take from the billionaires isn't asking. It's mob rule. It's the tyranny of the majority.

I guess I see a distinction between the potential implications of people going without food or medical care and my fellow citizens making sexual decisions that I may personally disagree with.

Are you also against public education?

I don't assume you're against private donations. That's why I specifically asked about your opinions on social safety net programs, not, say, charity. Private donations are a whole different discussion.

debrakgoogins wrote: »

2aycocks wrote: »

[And at what point do you want the government to NOT micro manage? It may not bother you if they micro manage sofa, but what about other parts of your private life? It is a very slippery slope once they start to interfere in any aspect of your personal life.

If you're receiving assistance from the government, it is no longer your personal life. It's being paid for by taxpayers. If you earned the money, spend it on what/how you please. If you are receiving a free benefit, use it the way they stipulate you should use it. WIC specifies exactly what you can purchase with the vouchers provided. I see no reason why TANFF shouldn't as well. And, yes, I have received assistance in the past for a very short time so I am familiar with the process and the stigma with being a welfare recipient.

Just to be clear, we are talking about SNAP, not TANF.

janejellyroll wrote: »

I guess I see a distinction between the potential implications of people going without food or medical care and my fellow citizens making sexual decisions that I may personally disagree with.

Are you also against public education?

I don't assume you're against private donations. That's why I specifically asked about your opinions on social safety net programs, not, say, charity. Private donations are a whole different discussion.

I don't make a distinction. It is no better to impose values regarding a social safety net than it is to impose sexual values.

In both cases, you are robbing someone of their freedom.

You cannot impose values on another AND say you are pro-freedom. If I make you donate or prevent you from marrying your desired partner, even if I believe it is for the greater good, I have robbed you of the freedom to decide the issue for yourself.

In a free society, both impositions are equally bad.

Here in the UK the way those down on their fortunes are treated is appalling. Imv from what I've read here its far worse in the US. In both countries its a dog eat dog attitude and the devil take the hindmost.


I believe this. Its good to be everyone's equal and no one's better. Probably I favour a national income.

tbright1965 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

tbright1965 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I guess I see a distinction between the potential implications of people going without food or medical care and my fellow citizens making sexual decisions that I may personally disagree with.

Are you also against public education?

I don't assume you're against private donations. That's why I specifically asked about your opinions on social safety net programs, not, say, charity. Private donations are a whole different discussion.

I don't make a distinction. It is no better to impose values regarding a social safety net than it is to impose sexual values.

In both cases, you are robbing someone of their freedom.

You cannot impose values on another AND say you are pro-freedom. If I make you donate or prevent you from marrying your desired partner, even if I believe it is for the greater good, I have robbed you of the freedom to decide the issue for yourself.

In a free society, both impositions are equally bad.

I feel like "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. "Better" for who? There are a lot of value judgments attached to your opinions and I'm not sure what they are grounded in.

Are you against all taxation?

Better for freedom.

The more power one concentrates in one place, the more dangerous any corruption is.

Give people the freedom to decide issues for themselves as much as possible.

Like I said, if you wish to make your contributions to the centralized government system, I would not deny you the freedom to do so. I simply ask that others who have different values be given the same level of freedom to choose otherwise.

I believe people should be free to decide issues for themselves, not have a greater good imposed on them by left leaning, nor right leaning authoritarians.

So all taxation should be voluntary?

lemurcat12 wrote: »

debrakgoogins wrote: »

2aycocks wrote: »

[And at what point do you want the government to NOT micro manage? It may not bother you if they micro manage sofa, but what about other parts of your private life? It is a very slippery slope once they start to interfere in any aspect of your personal life.

If you're receiving assistance from the government, it is no longer your personal life. It's being paid for by taxpayers. If you earned the money, spend it on what/how you please. If you are receiving a free benefit, use it the way they stipulate you should use it. WIC specifies exactly what you can purchase with the vouchers provided. I see no reason why TANFF shouldn't as well. And, yes, I have received assistance in the past for a very short time so I am familiar with the process and the stigma with being a welfare recipient.

Just to be clear, we are talking about SNAP, not TANF.

Thank you - my mistake. My opinion is still the same whether it is SNAP, TANF, WIC or any other similar program.